Earth Summit

[Brimshack]

There is a clear link to environmental issues and some form of Global regulation. To regulate polution at the national level provides economic advantages for those nations unwilling to pass such legislation, the end result being a general disincentive to distort internal markets by passing any meaningful legislation on the subject whatsoever. The only way to make any progress is to ensure that the skewing of market conditions by such legislation has a global effect. If fears of a world government, the Anti-Christ, etc. prevent exploration of such an agreement, then Christianity becomes an excuse for irresponsibility. But since the market has long since become a global phenomenon, I find it at least as likely that such an organization would emerge from the unchecked power of international corporations as from any UN agency …but perhaps I've been drinking too much floridated water.

 

[coastie]

I'min agreement that global legislation is possibly the answer we are looking for, but the problem lies in the intent and personal responsibility of the authors.

If global polution and environmental legislation is going to be effective, it is important that all nations have an equal part in thedrafting of the agreement.

I would also suggest that this would require more attentiveness by global super powers as well as the developing nations since these two sub-categories are the two major contributors to raising carbon dioxide levels.

 

[Brimshack]

Agreed; my argument only establishes a reason to seek such legislation in principle, but in practice it's a tricky prospect. And command and control legislation isn't always the answer, especially if it results in unfunded mandates, or if enforcement mechanisms are lacking, which is often the case.

 

[coastie]

And command and control legislation isn't always the answer, especially if it results in unfunded mandates, or if enforcement mechanisms are lacking, which is often the case.

You just nailed the two biggest problems with the Kyoto treaty.

First of, for an international treaty, it really didn't have enough global support to succeed. The two big problems were that the guidlines were unclear without specifically addressing nation specific interests (weaknesses and strenghts) thus leaving the environmentally less-reputable nations exempt.

Likewise those nations were under no obligation to comply, had they even agreed to the conditions, due to lack of jurisdiction of enforcing authorities... out of fairness. This basically would cause the comlying nations to take a much larger loss than those not in agrrement with the standards. Why punish the good samaritans for the derelicts' faults?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that, with adequate global support, a much more reasonable treaty could be drafted by a broader international panel.

 

[Brimshack]

One can only hope, but of course that may be the point behind pressing to sign the treaty anyway. It's the foot-in-the-door strategy. Just as with any political orientation, environmentalists will often knowingly back questionable legislation in the hopes that it will translate into momentum for better legislation on down the road.

 

[coastie]

Well, then hopefully the strategy works in summoning a cooperative effort to get a decent treaty written... as you said, one can only hope.

 

[Tini]

Along the same lines. The outcomes of the Earth Summit have again been very wishy washy and open ended. But no one expected much more.

Everyone is using this as a forum to blame otherhe greens are bashing big business. Business is bashing the politicians. And the politicians are blaming each other and bringing up non related issues.

As one newspaper put it, a lot of people flew in aircraft that spewed out a lot of pollution, they ate some of the best food in the world in luxury while right next door to some of the poorest people living in degraded environments suffering from famine and drought.

The summit is winding down with just a few side events still on the go until the weekend.

 

[Susan]

The problem I have with what the earth summit represents. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It’s all about pantheism, the worship of mother earth. JESUS will not be worshipped at this event. There will be no prayers for the kingdom of CHRIST to come. It will only entail of what man can do to save himself. The Christians that are supporting this event may be doing it because they fill it is a good cause, but what they are actually doing is supporting a UN sponsored event that only wants unity for the purpose of a world government. A world government ruled by man is only enslavement of mankind. The books of Daniel and Revelation warn of this event and the evil it represents. So Christians please do not be deceived by the supposed good intentions of what the earth summit is trying to portray. It real goals are the unity of the worship of mother earth and then a world government. Under the UN’S world constitution written by the united parliamentary association, private ownership of land will not be allowed along with firearms, and there are many other stipulations that will clearly violate the US constitutional rights of US citizens. We as Christians should refrain from supporting any activity that is sponsored by the UN. The UN will be the catalyst for the world government that brings the anti-christ to power.

I personally see nothing wrong with conservation of the environment, and yes if the technology exist to help keep the environment unpolluted, I will be the first one to say use it. I am against groups or organization that used these issues as a platform for taking control of the world lands and resources to distribute as they see fit. As we can see happening with our US parks services being systematically taken over by the UN in agreements our government has signed with them. Peace, but not yet.


I agree totally, Maranatha2002!

 

[Lacmeh]

I see now, why the UN is so opposed by Christian conservatives. It enforces the human right of exercising free religion, therefore opposing the claim of Christianity to be the only religion, that may be taught or learned.
Also international trade brings new ideas and questioning the own moral system. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is very threatening to fundamentalism. Everywhere, fundamentalism of some sort gets to rule, the first thing is the regulation of what peopel might read or see.

Susan, please show me a link where I can find the UN legislation, that forbids owning land and firearms. Please note, not even in the US you may legally own any firearm you want.

You don´t get it, the UN IS A POLITICAL INSTITUTION. It has nothing to do with religion, except, that one of the human rights aggreement,t hat even the US ratified, the right of free religion is part. The UN is a conglomerate of nations, should the UN evolve in a world governship then it is purely political. Ever heard of seperation of church and state? State doesn´t interfere with running church, except making sure, the buildings are safe, built stable, built in safe environments and so on. The state doesn´t choose preachers and some such. On the other hand, the chruich doesn´t twell the sate what he has to do, which laws he has to make, which people he has to reject and so on. It works quite well that way. Under a world government, based on the human rights, it will work as well.
Besides, companies already are globalised. There is no way around for nations to isolate themselves. Isolating themselves will bring ultimate decline. A good example is North Korea.